I'm just starting to ponder this issue, and have done no research, so forgive me if my questions appear very basic. I just want some ideas at this point.

I have an assistant who has a hearing deficiency. He wears hearing aids in each ear. He believes, and I agree, that his ability to try cases is hampered by the fact that he occasionally cannot hear what is being said in the courtroom. For example, during voir dire he�s fine talking to jurors on the first four or five rows. But by the time he gets to row six, he has difficulty hearing the juror and reading their lips. While he has no difficulty hearing what a witness is saying, he might sometimes miss a few words of the defense attorney�s questions. The acoustics of our courtroom seem to aggravate his impairment. He has approached me with an idea for a solution. In both of our district courts, the court reporters laptops are connected to a laptop on the judge's bench, and the judge can read the "real time" testimony. Now this isn't really "real time", and there is a bit of a lag. It is the testimony in a pretty raw form, but the ability to see even this would greatly assist my assistant in trial. I believe that this is a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. For just over $300 I could pay for the software and hardware that would get us up to speed, and I�m willing to spend that money.

Now the problems begin.

One of the court reporters, upon hearing that we were researching this software, immediately responded that we were wasting out time because he wasn�t going to do it. If you know me, you know that this only made me more determined to provide this accommodation. I don't expect to get much help from that particular judge, so does anyone have any experience with similar situations? I have never dealt with the ADA, so I'm starting out from square one. I expect that I will be able to get the backing of the Commissioners Court, so any opposition is going to come from that particular court.

The software does more than just give the user the ability to read the testimony. It has the ability to save the testimony, search the testimony, etc. At some point will we be going beyond "reasonable accommodation" and be giving the state an advantage over the defense? I don't have any objection to the defense having the same abilities, although I'm not going to pay for it. What if we agree not to use those functions, and to limit our use to that assistant reading the testimony as it happens? I don�t want the county to suddenly be responsible for providing technology that we can�t afford, just because I am trying to comply with the ADA.

I would appreciate any thoughts!

It sounds to me as though you are on the right track. The software is a reasonable accomodation to the assistant's problem, and is probably the most reasonable one.

The Reporter is, I presume, a contract employee of the county; he/she can get over it or be replaced.

Hopefully the judge, once he/she understands the ADA implications and the danger to the county of failing to comply, will, however reluctantly, accept the situation.

Since this is an ADA accomodation and not an attempt to bolster the strength of the State, I would think that any objection by the defense would be overturned - unless counsel or defendant has a similar disabilty. After all - a seeing eye dog probably helps calm a blind attorney; that doesn't mean I can bring my dogs to Court!

Arf Arf....

To everyone and give everyone the same access that the judge has. While the judges may not be too concerned about what the DA thinks about ADA law or whatever, I would think that sooner or later, some defense attorney is going to argue access only by the judge consititutes some violation of right to effective assistance of counsel, ex parte communicatiions, due process,open courts, and so on, since the court reporter might mistakenly tell the judge some wrong information upon which he might mistakenly rule, and so on. So if you can not have it, then no one, INCLUDING THE JUDGE, should have it.....

I am not so sure that tapping the prosecutor into the court reporter's notes is a sufficient resolution to the problem. While it might seem to be a reasonable accomodation, I think it presents a number of problems.

The prosecutor is no longer listening and determining for himself what is being said. He is relying on the information recorded by the court reporter and with a delay of at least several seconds. And, as anyone who has seen that stuff, it often can contain soundex gibberish that requires translation.

I also would be quite concerned about a prosecutor who is asking questions of a juror, trying to establish a connection with that juror (hopefully through eye contact) while simultaneously reading a computer screen with a delay. That does not seem like a great solution.

In addition, using the court reporter's notes introduces an aspect of an employee of the court providing support for the State, creating an obvious potential conflict of interest. It doesn't get resolved the giving the defense access, because they don't need it to hear the juror or witness.

There are also times during a trial that a court reporter doesn't take down notes. Bench conferences, etc., when the judge goes "off the record." Will this create a problem?

These issues just come off the top of my head. Anyone see any others?

Isn't there a "headphone" device designed for listeners with a hearing problem that will amplify hearing that could be used? I seem to recall seing an ad for one somewhere. I think some movie theaters offer them for use by patrons.

I don't have the cite handy, but I remember a case from a couple of years ago in one of those other, more liberal federal circuits in which a county was held liable under the ADA for failing to accommodate the hearing disabled in its courtrooms. Liability was imposed not under Title II (dealing with employment), but rather Title I (dealing with public facilities). That may be something to pitch to both your judge and the commissioners court. While the judge would probably have judicial immunity from any individual capacity claim, his costing the county a big judgment by intransigence in control over "his" courtroom could haunt him on election day. Meanwhile, Ken's suggestion seems at first blush to be the most comprehensive solution to the public accommodation issue. You are to be commended, in any event, for trying to "think outside the box" in reaching a fair solution.

With respect to the court reporter notes, I tried two civil cases in dallas with such a system in the civil courts where the attorneys and the judge had real time access. At first it was a major distraction and somewhat confusing, but then as I became more use to it, I found it to be very helpful and after the second trial, actually missed not having such access in the next trial in a different courtroom. It has been more years than I care to remember since the experience, but I would think that only the judge having access is not fair to the parties.
It also seems that such changes will be coming to us all as computer technolgy changes.

I believe that the device Ken is referring to is used by our Church. We have several older people who wear headphones during services. At least I assume that is what they are using. Maybe they are just listening to a ballgame.